nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Transitional form (view source)
Revision as of 23:49, February 1, 2008
, 23:49, February 1, 2008→Recent quote: Explain yourself, self-serving distinctions, and poor evidence to make an argument
::::::::No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
::::::::No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
::::::::Here, have a list of them: [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html List from Talk Origins] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Here, have a list of them: [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html List from Talk Origins] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Much of your post is nonsensical throw-away lines. Such as "Uh what"? Huh? What yourself? Explain yourself if you want to make an argument.
::::::::: In your next line I think you are making reference to an old and discredited [[furphy]], to which the answer is [[classification system|here]].
::::::::: Regarding statistical improbability, again, throwing around a few terms does not an argument make. And if your "nutty" reference was supposed to be an answer to my reference to Gould, first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty", and second, I wasn't referring to that, but to my argument from Gould in my prior post.
::::::::: Evolutionists like to make out that it's just the details that they are still uncertain about, yet what they actually disagree on and keep changing are some fairly fundamental points (such as whether it happened slowly and gradually or in sudden spurts). Your previous comment, whether you use 'discarded' or 'rearranged' suggests the major changes in the idea, whereas your later comment about the "exact order" suggests that only the detail is in question. I was contrasting those two aspects.
::::::::: The creationary model is also constantly being upgraded in response to new evidence. The basic premises, such as creation itself is not, but then the basic premises of evolutionists, such as naturalism and evolution itself are not either. Typical of sceptics, you are merely trying to make a self-serving distinction where none exists and in doing so are being inconsistent.
::::::::: The Wikipedia quote is nothing more than post-hoc explanation for the lack of the evidence that evolutionists should expect, as I pointed out from Gould. Furthermore, it is trying to have a bob each way, in both claiming that the fossil record does ("Although transitional fossil elucidate...") and will ("progressing research and discover are managing to fill in gaps.") show evolution whilst also explaining why it doesn't.
::::::::: And how is it unbalanced to only say that there are no transitional fossils ''if that is so''? You are claiming that it is unbalanced because it doesn't acknowledge your views. But if your views are wrong, then it's not unbalanced to not acknowledge them. The article already has a reference to the link you provide, but the link fails to make its case. To take the first example I looked at, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#eleph elephants], it starts off with "''Minchenella'' or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids." This is nothing more than evolutionary story-telling. There's not enough of the fossil to really tell, and the best she can say is that it's "the most plausible ancestor". So apart from it not being hard evidence contradicting Gould and Patterson, it's circular reasoning because it's starting with the assumption that there must be something that evolved into an elephant and that this is the most likely candidate. Not all her arguments are exactly like that of course, but from what I've seen there is nothing of real substance there. The existence of an article full of bluff and fluff trying to make the case does not mean that the case is actually made and that the paleontologists quoted in the article had no clue what they were talking about.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
== Picture ==
== Picture ==